Hi there, Elliott here speaking on behalf of the Data Working Group. In this changeset you'd deleted the UM BioPark polygon. Was that an error? I have restored it.

Eric, nice work on this! I am a fellow ECG editor and last worked on editing the greenway about a year ago. Thanks for the recent edits. Would you be interested in helping me track the progress via the wiki? https://community.openstreetmap.org/t/east-coast-greenway-relation-continuity-edits/6483

Also, are you affiliated with the ECG at all? In the past, for updates, I've used their official data (in collaboration with the staff) to make updates. Tell me about your process. Thanks!

123456!

oh, I see now about the detour so this make more sense! thanks for tagging it. I just asked the 9/11 Trail folks if they'd like the trail rerouted to follow the detour during the closure.

Hi Michal! What sort of barrier is the one at the entrance to the tunnel? A bollard perhaps?

Just a note to be wary of maintaining route connectivity when adding crossings. I know you know this already. In a few instances I see crosswalks were added and, in the process, broke the East Coast Greenway relation.

Ex: way/1087560668#map=19/39.28059/-76.61138
way/1087560666#map=19/39.28057/-76.61134
way/1087560667#map=19/39.28078/-76.61146

Since you're editing in JOSM, try the "Colorize bicycle routes" map paint style. Thanks!

(I've got a changeset open now so no need to fix, I got them.)

wow, nice work on this one!

FYI, I've blocked Zluuzki for this action. Please read osm.org/user_blocks/6573

nice work on this Greg!

Hey, FYI I fixed this for ya by adding the full extent of the EEZ. You can now see the arc is properly drawn. It will take some time to refresh. way/640962318

Thanks for reverting. I think the pipeline data is actually useful data for the project and I would support adding them. These blocks however are meaningless as localities. This part could have been dropped from the import.

@pitscheplatsch looks like your link is wrong by a digit. Here is the original changeset. changeset/129300298

Hello again, some trouble with this edit, similar to the comment over on changeset/127644478

Have a look at way/535792738 for instance. This should not be restricted. It would appear you'd selected all of the roads around the BW Parkway with a lasso tool and JOSM and forgot to remove these. That is a simple mistake but this would drastically alter bicycle routing along Laurel Bowie Road.

Thank you,

Elliott Plack
OSMF Data Working Group

Hi there, which "MD bicycle route network map" specifically was this edit in reference to? MDOT SHA has been adjusting their restrictions lately and there is some out of date information online. Also, it would appear that a few of the routes marked as prohibited are either, not prohibited, or not necessary. Motorways are bicycle=no by default so it may not be necessary to add these tags to them.

Did you happen to check any of these on the ground? On OSM we have a policy of not copying from other maps, and in this edit you're claiming to have copied from another map. I see more bike/ped access changes by you around Maryland that may also be out of date.

Please let us know how you came across the information used to update these roads.

Thank you,

Elliott Plack
Data Working Group

Thank you, Aleksey! Have a great day.

Hi Aleksey, I came across this edit because I-95, the busiest highway in the United States, does not carry any name between DC and Baltimore. It is simply "I-95" which is reflected in the route ref. Am I to assume this edit is related to Mapbox Mapping teams' support of road navigation? By local custom and OSM standard, names should not be applied to things that are not named. Nearby motorways may have names, e.g. The "Baltimore Washington Parkway" but I-95 most certainly does not. Please roll back this change. This has been discussed previously in OSM US slack (https://osmus.slack.com/archives/C2VJAJCS0/p1629488217256300). See also, osm.wiki/Names#Names_are_not_for_descriptions

I look forward to your response.

Elliott Plack
Data Working Group

Hi, you will not remove it! It is ok to have both. One is for routing, one is for visual representing the full ped path plaza.

Hey there, looks like you dropped the name from the trail. Was that intentional? Although the name of the trail is also on the relation, it is still appropriate and conventional to add the name of the trail to the path itself, as many viewers (and editors) do not see the relations or understand them.

https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/tags/no=yes

We also have yes=no 🤔